httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/include hide.h
Date Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:51:13 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> In article <19980304120209.13336.qmail@hyperreal.org> you wrote:
> > coar        98/03/04 04:02:09
> 
> >       No, no, no - don't hide symbols which have already been given
> >       collision insurance.
> 
> Hmmm.... was this really what we wanted in the discussion, Ken? I personally
> don't like this because while you are correct that it is a duplicate hiding, I
> thing it makes it confusing. I agree with Dean that special cases are not very
> useful here.

I thought it was implicitly obvious that already-protected symbols should
be exempt from re-hiding.  If it wasn't, I'm sorry - but that's been
my understanding and intention throughout.  I don't regard these as
special cases - if anything, the symbols being hidden are the ones
being special-cased.  The ones with the collision insurance are in
many cases *meant* to be exportable - putting them in hide.h breaks this.

> >   +        next if ($name =~ m:^ap(_)|(api):);
> 
> BTW: What type of regex is this? Shouldn't this correctly read:
> 
>              next if ($name =~ m:^ap(_|api):);

It depends upon whether the regex engine binds words more tightly than
single characters.  Your example could conceivably be misunderstood as
"m:^ap([_a]pi):".  To remove *all* ambiguity it could be written as
"m:^ap(_|(api)):" but I think that's less clear.  True, this disambiguation
isn't necessary for Perl, but I prefer to make it obvious what the intent
is.  Go ahead and change it if it offends you, though.

#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member         <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://WWW.Dummies.Com/

Mime
View raw message